The High Court held that further custodial detention was unnecessary where the complaint had already been filed and investigation against the petitioners had substantially concluded. Bail was granted subject to conditions against influencing witnesses.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail after noting that none of the 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined despite the accused being in custody since May 2025. The Court held that prolonged incarceration pending trial was not justified.
Court reiterated that gravity of economic offences alone is insufficient to deny bail in every case. It emphasized that bail remains the rule unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail in multiple GST and VAT-related economic offence cases after noting that investigation and filing of challans were already complete. The Court held that prolonged custody after completion of investigation was not justified.
The High Court granted regular bail in a GST tax evasion case after noting that the evidence was primarily documentary and the complaint had already been filed. The Court also imposed strict conditions to prevent witness influence.
The Orissa High Court held that dismissal of a Section 34 challenge petition on maintainability grounds effectively amounts to refusal to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37. The Court restored the challenge petition for adjudication on merits.
The High Court held that disputes involving factual examination and merits under Section 74 of the CGST Act must ordinarily be pursued through statutory appeals. It ruled that neither lack of jurisdiction nor violation of natural justice was established to justify bypassing alternate remedies.
The Rajasthan High Court held that refusal to hear the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice where cancellation of GST registration impacted business continuity and livelihood. The Court exercised writ jurisdiction to condone the delay.
The Gauhati High Court held that a Summary Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the mandatory notice under Section 73(1) of the AGST Act. The GST demand order was quashed for non-compliance with statutory procedure.
The Kerala High Court held that although the earlier communication was not a Section 74 notice, the subsequent GST DRC-01 notice prima facie met statutory requirements. The Court directed the taxpayer to pursue statutory appellate remedies.
